5 ms·

So, I was about to write that it sounds confusing, but it kinda sounds more confused. Do all interviews to the Economist sounds like that? I mean, spending tim

by Yoric 9y ago

So, I was about to write that it sounds confusing, but it kinda sounds more confused. Do all interviews to the Economist sounds like that? I mean, spending time on anecdotes, evading the questions or failing to understand them, insisting that an expression is original, repeating empty words, etc?

throwanem 9y ago
No, that's all Trump. He interviews terribly, which is part of what makes him appealing to people fed up with what they perceive to be the failings of professional politicians - whatever else he may be, he certainly is not that.
- krapp 9y ago
  I've become convinced that Donald Trump wasn't actually elected to be President, he was elected to play the part of President on television - specifically, to be the angry, right-wing version of President Bartlett from the West Wing.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    I don't think that the overlap between Trump voters and West Wing fans is likely to be all that large, but I take your point. I don't agree with it, though. Trump voters by and large voted for him because they wanted done what he said he would do, and he successfully enough presented himself as the kind of socially liberal, but America-first fiscally conservative, candidate that a lot of people have wanted to see for a very long time. Whether he'll actually do any of the things he claimed he would is a different question, of course, as is whether he - or anyone - can. But I don't think it takes an effort of hermeneutics to understand why people wanted to give him the job, when their stated reasons have been so clearly on display.
    - krapp 9y ago
      I'm not certain Donald Trump's views or stated goals put him that far outside the general Republican mainstream or separated him from the other candidates. And arguably, other candidates have been more qualified and capable to actually pass the kind of legislation Trump supporters wanted. Which is why, to me, Trump's persona seemed to matter more than his actual policy positions. As a policy goal, "the wall" it makes little sense. From a "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" point of view, it makes no sense. But as a symbol of right-wing defiance, as a dramatic device, building a giant wall to keep out the foreigners and making them pay for it because America is just that strong makes perfect sense. >But I don't think it takes an effort of hermeneutics to understand why people wanted to give him the job, when their stated reasons have been so clearly on display. The stated reasons have been all over the place, though, and they include a general sense of disgust with political correctness and multiculturalism, and wanting someone to act as a "brick through the window of the establishment." I've seen so many things attributed to Trump's election at this point that I'm starting to wonder how many of his supporters actually voted for him rather than against something or someone else. I may not be entirely correct, but I'm not certain I'm entirely wrong, either.
      - throwanem 9y ago
        > From a "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" point of view, it makes no sense From an America-first social liberal, it makes a great deal of sense. The argument would be that, first, it behooves the US government to look after bettering the lives of its own lawful citizens first, before attempting to police and/or provide welfare to the whole world; and, second, that incontinently accepting trespassers and extending them materially the same benefits offered citizens vitiates the government's capacity to discharge its responsibilities to those of us who have a right to be here. (And, yes, I realize precisely how heretical that sounds to a lot of people.) But I don't really have a good cite to point to, that demonstrates Trump actually made that argument in so many words - although it wouldn't surprise me to learn that one exists, and I'm just not closely familiar with it. After all, the man says a lot of things. I'd have a hard time arguing against the proposition that a lot of Trump voters were voting, not for him, but against Clinton - just like a lot of people voted not for Kerry, but against Bush, in 2004. But he did have a solid base of support, I think a large majority by comparison with "tactical" voters more like myself. He earned that support by dint of his policy claims, and with the "outsider" persona which lent credibility to his argument that, unlike those he faced in the various debates, his interest in the job revolved around actually delivering on those claims. Of course, now that he has the office, he seems to be completely falling apart in it. But that has no bearing I can see on how he came to be there in the first place.
nkurz 9y ago
insisting that an expression is original Yes, I found the "priming the pump" comments cringeworthy, and they do concern me about his mental state, but I thought much of content of the interview was actually very clear. Consider his statements on "legal immigration" (which unfortunately he first misheard as "illegal immigration"): Economist: And what about legal immigration? Do you want to cut the number of immigrants? Trump: Oh legal, no, no, no. I want people to come into the country legally. No, legally? No. I want people to come in legally. But I want people to come in on merit. I want to go to a merit-based system. Actually two countries that have very strong systems are Australia and Canada. And I like those systems very much, they’re very strong, they’re very good, I like them very much. We’re going to a much more merit-based system. But I absolutely want talented people coming in, I want people that are going to love our country coming in, I want people that are going to contribute to our country coming in. We want a provision at the right time, we want people that are coming in and will commit to not getting…not receiving any form of subsidy to live in our country for at least a five-year period. Economist: But the numbers of those people could be as high as the numbers that are coming in legally now? You’re not looking to reduce the numbers? Trump: Oh yeah, no, no, no, no, we want people coming in legally. No, very strongly. Now they’re going to be much more strongly vetted as you see. You know, we’ve broken the all-time record [of detentions at the border] by many times, 73, we’re up to 73, it’s going to go up to almost 80% at the border, we’ve…you know, really stopped it. We also want farm workers to be able to come in. You know, we’re going to have work visas for the farm workers. If you look, you know we have a lot of people coming through the border, they’re great people and they work on the farms and then they go back home. We like those people a lot and we want them to continue to come in. I thought his answer in the first paragraph was refreshingly clear and defensible. While his grammar might be lacking, the message itself seemed very clear, although hard to square with the usual media mantra of "Trump is anti-immigrant".

by Yoric 9y ago

throwanem 9y ago

No, that's all Trump. He interviews terribly, which is part of what makes him appealing to people fed up with what they perceive to be the failings of professional politicians - whatever else he may be, he certainly is not that.

krapp 9y ago
I've become convinced that Donald Trump wasn't actually elected to be President, he was elected to play the part of President on television - specifically, to be the angry, right-wing version of President Bartlett from the West Wing.
- throwanem 9y ago
  I don't think that the overlap between Trump voters and West Wing fans is likely to be all that large, but I take your point. I don't agree with it, though. Trump voters by and large voted for him because they wanted done what he said he would do, and he successfully enough presented himself as the kind of socially liberal, but America-first fiscally conservative, candidate that a lot of people have wanted to see for a very long time. Whether he'll actually do any of the things he claimed he would is a different question, of course, as is whether he - or anyone - can. But I don't think it takes an effort of hermeneutics to understand why people wanted to give him the job, when their stated reasons have been so clearly on display.
  - krapp 9y ago
    I'm not certain Donald Trump's views or stated goals put him that far outside the general Republican mainstream or separated him from the other candidates. And arguably, other candidates have been more qualified and capable to actually pass the kind of legislation Trump supporters wanted. Which is why, to me, Trump's persona seemed to matter more than his actual policy positions. As a policy goal, "the wall" it makes little sense. From a "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" point of view, it makes no sense. But as a symbol of right-wing defiance, as a dramatic device, building a giant wall to keep out the foreigners and making them pay for it because America is just that strong makes perfect sense. >But I don't think it takes an effort of hermeneutics to understand why people wanted to give him the job, when their stated reasons have been so clearly on display. The stated reasons have been all over the place, though, and they include a general sense of disgust with political correctness and multiculturalism, and wanting someone to act as a "brick through the window of the establishment." I've seen so many things attributed to Trump's election at this point that I'm starting to wonder how many of his supporters actually voted for him rather than against something or someone else. I may not be entirely correct, but I'm not certain I'm entirely wrong, either.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      > From a "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" point of view, it makes no sense From an America-first social liberal, it makes a great deal of sense. The argument would be that, first, it behooves the US government to look after bettering the lives of its own lawful citizens first, before attempting to police and/or provide welfare to the whole world; and, second, that incontinently accepting trespassers and extending them materially the same benefits offered citizens vitiates the government's capacity to discharge its responsibilities to those of us who have a right to be here. (And, yes, I realize precisely how heretical that sounds to a lot of people.) But I don't really have a good cite to point to, that demonstrates Trump actually made that argument in so many words - although it wouldn't surprise me to learn that one exists, and I'm just not closely familiar with it. After all, the man says a lot of things. I'd have a hard time arguing against the proposition that a lot of Trump voters were voting, not for him, but against Clinton - just like a lot of people voted not for Kerry, but against Bush, in 2004. But he did have a solid base of support, I think a large majority by comparison with "tactical" voters more like myself. He earned that support by dint of his policy claims, and with the "outsider" persona which lent credibility to his argument that, unlike those he faced in the various debates, his interest in the job revolved around actually delivering on those claims. Of course, now that he has the office, he seems to be completely falling apart in it. But that has no bearing I can see on how he came to be there in the first place.

nkurz 9y ago

insisting that an expression is original Yes, I found the "priming the pump" comments cringeworthy, and they do concern me about his mental state, but I thought much of content of the interview was actually very clear. Consider his statements on "legal immigration" (which unfortunately he first misheard as "illegal immigration"): Economist: And what about legal immigration? Do you want to cut the number of immigrants? Trump: Oh legal, no, no, no. I want people to come into the country legally. No, legally? No. I want people to come in legally. But I want people to come in on merit. I want to go to a merit-based system. Actually two countries that have very strong systems are Australia and Canada. And I like those systems very much, they’re very strong, they’re very good, I like them very much. We’re going to a much more merit-based system. But I absolutely want talented people coming in, I want people that are going to love our country coming in, I want people that are going to contribute to our country coming in. We want a provision at the right time, we want people that are coming in and will commit to not getting…not receiving any form of subsidy to live in our country for at least a five-year period. Economist: But the numbers of those people could be as high as the numbers that are coming in legally now? You’re not looking to reduce the numbers? Trump: Oh yeah, no, no, no, no, we want people coming in legally. No, very strongly. Now they’re going to be much more strongly vetted as you see. You know, we’ve broken the all-time record [of detentions at the border] by many times, 73, we’re up to 73, it’s going to go up to almost 80% at the border, we’ve…you know, really stopped it. We also want farm workers to be able to come in. You know, we’re going to have work visas for the farm workers. If you look, you know we have a lot of people coming through the border, they’re great people and they work on the farms and then they go back home. We like those people a lot and we want them to continue to come in. I thought his answer in the first paragraph was refreshingly clear and defensible. While his grammar might be lacking, the message itself seemed very clear, although hard to square with the usual media mantra of "Trump is anti-immigrant".